Posted
by
Zonkon Friday April 06, 2007 @01:46PM
from the having-goals-is-a-great-idea dept.

newsblaze writes "China, having recognized there are major gaps in its science and technology arsenal, released their Technology Development Plans. The plans cover five main areas — geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering. Three areas are prioritized in space technology and six major goals are announced.
All this comes after having first set out their 100 Year Vision of Greatness.
They appear to be giving themselves a breathing space, telling the world they are interested in cooperation and also giving themselves a major target, in much the same way as John F Kennedy did for the USA."

Regardless of how technologically superior China might be, technology alone does not create a high-quality society. To this day, many members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continue to emigrate to the United States (even while their relatives and other comrades in the CCP brutalize North Korean refugees). They could live like kings in China due to their CCP-derived wealth, yet they choose to go to the USA.

Look closely at Vietnam [usembassy.gov]. Though it is still an authoritarian society, the Vietnamese have m

The Chinese focus on pompous national goals (e.g., space weapons and the like)

Foolish, but inevitable. How else would you inspire an apathetic populace to DO stuff? The moon landing was the same. So is the White House's Mars fetish. Personally, I don't give a damn if at least some useful technology comes out of it. People dig their own graves. If a huge population such as China's can't demand and obtain human rights from their tiny ruling minority, perhaps they actually believe in all the "national glory" horseshit. So be it. After generations of innovation by someone else, at least

The fact that China is pursuing a 100-year plan for greatness underscores the difference between American and Chinese culture, and shows why American culture is superior. Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

Why bother planning for the next 100 years when the rapture is immanent? Instead, they should be teaching the Bible in schools like we do here, so that they might be saved when Jesus returns.

It will no doubt shock you to know this, but the majority of Christians in the world do not believe in the rapture and quite a few of us really have no desire at all for the Bible to be taught in schools. Churches and parents can do the Bible teaching quite nicely on their own. The problem is that the people who

The problem is that the people who do believe in the rapture and want the Bible to be taught in school make an awful lot of noise and while they are in very large numbers in the USA, they are not in the majority in other places.

Or even a majority of Christians in the USA. What they are in the US, is very well-organized and connected politically.

This is the second modded-troll (or attempt at humor, whatever) I have defended in two days. If you peek into who runs the US government (well at least the executive branch), you will find that this concept has some support. Why conserve natural resources when Jay-zuss has given us all these abundant natural resources to plunder?Although I would still give 1000x more credit for the pillaging of the world by American business not because Jay-zuss is coming to take us all home, but because executives don't ge

Let's say that it's around 1915, your name is Thomas J. Watson and you've just been been hired to help out a company called Computing- Tabulating- Recording Company. Your job is to come up with a hundred-year plan to help the company sell their tabulating and time-recording devices to businesses. Please account for technologies that haven't been invented yet, materials that haven't been discovered or invented, a couple of wars, advances in travel and communications,

It worked well for Japan and the auto industry. They started with making inferior copies cheaply, figured out how to improve the quality without substantially increasing the cost, and now American manufacturers are second rate.

Though, there have been some impressive contributions to the crypto community from chinese researchers recently. They're already ahead of the curve in some fields.

Exactly. It is a fascinatic topic actually. This technological and economy success was named japanese wonder, signifying their development in the WW2-today period. Why is it that posters seem to think that china is doing some immoral thing by acquiring knowledge?

An overdeveloped sense of entitlement. TV has lead us to believe that we deserve to live in opulent luxury. It's hard to do that if all of the jobs that pay above minimum wage are going to people who are more educated, harder working, more dedicated, and making not much more than our minimum wage to provide them with a very comfortable lifestyle in their homeland.

The great genius of Japan is that they don't have the last shred if the Not Invented Here syndrome. Same goes for India. Japan didn't start out making cheap copies of goods, they started over after having their industry bombed out. They went from junk to world class way faster than Americans realized, not because they copied, but because they learned. In fact they learned about the best of American innovation faster than Americans did.American has dreadful NIH and xenophobia. We won't even use the met

From what I understand Toyota and Nissan take much better care of their employees than GM and Ford. At Toyota and Nissan if you come up with a great idea that will eliminate your responsibilities you do not lose your job!

Of course not all the blame goes to the auto companies. They were working within the framework of the society at large and it's laws. And they were also dealing with their own history towards their own

The American autoworkers in the Japanese plants ARE unionized. In fact, they are making as much as the folks up north. Personally, I have always thought that if a company such as GM or Ford or United Airlines is heading downwards, it is the management that should the blame. But like our politicians, those at the top try hard to shift the blame to those below them. I would guess that it is the lack of personal responsibility that is costing America. I wonder if we introduce Seppuku for our top leaders in Go

it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.

Science is a system and culture based on open discourse, accountability and merit. A culture that strives for good science should also honour these values in itself.

Forget China, I'd like to see the USA start "investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on!"

"We, in the USA, lock up our criminals, not our politically undesireable."

Every society defines its own crime. The "political undesirable" were criminals, in Soviet Russia. What is wrong with American society that we have so many criminals? Are there more criminals, or more *crimes* -- behaviors that in the past did not result in imprisonment, but now do?

Are things really getting worse on the street, or are three-strikes laws and 0-tolerance drug policies for non-violent offenders locking up people who are otherwise productive members of society?

This CS Monitor article [csmonitor.com] says that we now lead the world in incarceration: "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world."

You know what? You might be right. We might not actually have worse incarceration rates than Soviet Russia. But I'm sick of not being the worst. I believe that America is the greatest country on Earth. I think we should have the lowest incarceration rate in the world, right now, not just lower than Soviet Russia.

This ABC article [abc.net.au] says that "The United States has incarcerated 726 people per 100,000 of its population, seven to 10 times as many as most other democracies. The rate for England is 142 per 100,000, for France 91 and for Japan 58. "
Why are we getting beaten by Japan, France, and England? Why aren't we on top?

human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.

These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

I disagree. I'm not saying you're wrong, but from what I've seen (yes its my subjective view point) financial wealth breeds apathy. I've seen this in more than one country and more than one society. The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so. America is a great example of apathy due to financial wealth. I read this somewhere, (I cant remember where, so cant attribute it correctly, but I wont take credit for it) "The Chinese government has basically made a deal with its people, let it retain its place of power and in return it will bring them financial wealth". That is exactly what has been happening in China. People have been trading freedom for prosperity. There are thousands of protests in China each year, but its not the middle class and the rich protesting.. it's the poor who haven't benefited from China's prosperity.

Yes. I am sure that the rich as very politically active (albeit in a different way). Through corruption, cronyism, gifts and other means, the rich in China are very politically active. But the rich use their wealth to make the existing authority act favorably towards them. When they do try to use their wealth to defy the authority, Mikhail Khodorkovsky stands out as a warning to all. The rich are concerned in perpetuating their wealth and status, as long as the government can be coerced into letting them a

The middle class and the rich by definition have something to loose. They are the last people to want any kind of uncertainty and change always brings uncertainty. The middle class and the rich would only throw their weight in to help the poor if they themselves had something to loose by not doing so.

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

Maybe, but the leaders of the revolution are usually comfortable middle-class intellectuals and student cadres, people freed from the

You are absolutely right, the workers will throw their weight in if they have something to lose financially. The scenario you described is in support of my argument. They were not fighting for a different system of government or a freer society or any such abstract concept. They were fighting for financial well being. If the chinese government were to suddenly impoverish its middle class, they would surely rise up against it. But that is not the case, China's present government is creating a middle class, n

The poor throughout history are working enormous numbers of hours to barely pay their bills. The poor need their jobs, so they focus on those jobs and keeping their bosses happy, who generally tend to be the wealthy they would be agitating against. Further, poor children are generally put to work early, don't get educated, and don't value education, which would give them the tools to see the problems around them. In short, the poor don't have time nor the inclination nor the ability to start revolutions.

The poor have never contributed anything to any society, and they never will. The poor are the biggest danger to democracy, precisely because they have nothing to lose. They are easily appeased by corrupt governments that will give them temporary handouts by taking away from more productive elements of society. I don't disagree that the upper classes in wealthy countries can get apathetic, but at the same time there are very few examples of truely free societies which are not dominated by the interests of the middle and upper class.

Name a single society in history where the lower classes were the driving force for democracy? The democratic revolutions in the West (the United States, Britain, France) were driven by the interests of the commercial elite. Now, list the countries where corrupt governments came to power by making empty promises to the poor, who were only too happy to believe whatever they heard? Latin America, South-East Asia, and Africa are full of examples.

Computers are already telling us what to do a lot of the time especially at work. In 2020 a computer will get input from everyone over the internet and will respond to everyone. Its decisions will be always be corrected if they result in a negative fashion. A computer would not have any financial interest in any of it decisions. By 2020 we should be able to make a computer with enough artificial intelligence to govern us.

These things will all come with a middle class who demand them. You have to build that middle class up first. This is what a lot of people don't get. It's the middle class, who are financially independent, not the working class who demand change. Funnily enough, it's money which allows freedom to flourish.

This must be some strange meaning of the words "middle class" of which I have not previously been aware. Last I saw, "Middle Class" in the United States was defined as having incomes in the $36,000-$120,000 range; which while certainly comfortable and able to afford a few luxuries and assets, is certainly NOT what I'd call "financially independant" or "not working class".

Other than that I agree with you- as did George Orwell. The working poor can't afford to revolt- 100% of their time is spent just trying to survive. The rich are profiting from the status quo, they aren't going to change anything. Only with a middle class, who suffer due to worker conditions and prosper with a robust economy, can these changes be made.

So you're saying if a society doesn't have a sufficiently large middle class, that they must accept totalitarianism instead? Could it be instead, that a large middle class arises out of freedom? That it is freedom that diminishes the power of the aristocracy while simultaneously reducing destitution?

I fail to see where human rights, freedom of the press, or political pluralism factor in to (technical!) open discourse, accountability, and merit. While the western world created the scientific process concurrently with certain beliefs about social justice, there is no evidence to suggest that science as a process is reliant on those beliefs.And of course, I should note that a large percentage of the scientists in the US are working in fields that we'd like to sweep under the rug from a social justice poin

it would be nicer if they also started investing more interest in human rights, democratic ideals, freedom of speech, free press, no censorship, political pluralism, open competition of ideas and on and on and on.

You cite a variety of freedom related issues and mix in an (emphasis mine) political / structural bit, assuming it's part of the ultimate goal of a free society. I heard a beautiful statement the other day from Jacques Fresco along the lines of "Civilization is the goal, but we don't really have c

They'll spend a fortune developing research resources when they could have just announced a prize for a winner and allowed business to get on with it.Still. Just goes to show you can't tell politicians, they need to be controlling things. Same the world over.

A free market is not the answer to everything. It does some things well (evolve good consumer products) and some things poorly (evolve new technology). it tends to increment whats there and move towards what is pofitable. some research needs to be doen

...it's certainly a top-down mandate handed down by Communist Party officials in a one-party state! Why look at how well all those Soviet Five Year Plans did at burying us in mountains of wheat...

Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they w

...it's certainly a top-down mandate handed down by Communist Party officials in a one-party state! Why look at how well all those Soviet Five Year Plans did at burying us in mountains of wheat...Alternately, China could stop dicking around with piecemeal reform and institute capitalism, democracy, and the rule of law. If China had half the per-capita GNP of Tiawan, they could easily surpass the United States economically. But as long as they cling to the vestiges of a totalitarian command economy, they won

1: Check, though a bit oversimplified. The Chinese can't just dump their reserves out, because the impact on the world will be too drastic. They're in a better position than the US, but can't really take advantage of it.2: If by greatest, you mean largest by volume, then check.3: No. And please define "all major powers". If you say it's the US and a smattering of European countries, I'd be tempted to agree. Though that's like bragging that the US got more gold medals at the Olympics than Luxembourg - misleading, not to mention irrelevant.4: Wrong. They shot down a satellite to demonstrate they were able and willing to do so. Any country with ICBMs can achieve this, it's just that most are a bit more concerned than China about creating a huge mass of space junk.5: China keeps low? That's news to Taiwan, the US, Japan, Tibet, and pretty much the whole world. I'd also assume that China would take offense to being compared in any way to Russia. Russia is a two-bit thug on the world stage, while China plans on being the super-power. And since when is a wide-body passenger plane anything to brag about? Airbus would love to forget its latest venture in that area.6: Wrong. Military expenditures by China: 4.6%. Military expenditures by the US: 4.06%. And this is from heavily understated official figures.

China will be the world power by the time the second half of this century rolls around, but only one of your reasons will have even remotely something to do with it.

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

Check, though a bit oversimplified. The Chinese can't just dump their reserves out, because the impact on the world will be too drastic. They're in a better position than the US, but can't really take advantage of it.

No need to worry about the rest of the world - the impact on their own economy and currency from dumping their reserves will be devastating to them. There is

Alternately, one can hope that as they continue to embrace capitalism, eventually the people will overthrow the government and start wanting "rights".It's a bit of a farce to say the chinese are "keeping our currency afloat." What the heck does that mean? It would become weaker relative to other world currencies? Yes, that's true. So what? It also would bring manufacturing jobs to the USA. That's why China is trying to "depress" their own currency.

1: They, (the Chinese), are responsible for keeping our currency (the dollar) afloat since they are holding a good chunk of our debt.

China spent billions to get those billions. This is an investment for them. While they could go nuts and sell off all their US investments, the results would end up hurting them a lot more than it would hurt the US.

Even if that's all true, China's going to be staring down a pretty serious demographic within the same time period. It's entirely probably that they peak within twenty years and decline thereafter. Whether they will really wield more power or influence than the US in that timeframe is going to be very difficult to predict. I can't say I'd bet on it.

They hold out debt, but it is because they have tied their money to ours at a fixed rate that this is occurring. If W. had some balls and prevented it, then this artificial difference would be wiped out in a decade or so.

Need to look again. They are NOT the world's greatest manufacturers. In fact, America still outproduces them. Of course, it is the lower end consumables that they produce which is important. But at this time, I believe that America (and EU as well) still outproduce China.

Honestly, a more competitive China is the best thing that could happen to American science. We need the impetus of a threatening adversary to not only motivate the practitioners of science, but also to open the floodgates of private/corporate/government funding.

And on a related note, people need to stop dismissing China simply because of their political system. I hate communists just as much as the next red blooded American, but saying they can't do science in a one party government with a control economy is simply short sighted and naive. Doesn't anyone remember the cold war? I seem to recall the Soviets putting the first satellite in orbit, and the first man (and woman) in space. Just because we beat them to the moon doesn't mean they were inept. If anything, history should remind us how effective the concentrated efforts of the government, the economy, the military and civilians of a nation can be. Political freedom does not by default lead to progress, nor does a lack of it guarantee regress.

...is being updated, that's all. If you read your history, you will see that the reason China has a habit of making large, grandiose plans is that they are desperate to address embarrassing deficiencies. When the nation's space agency announces that outer-space seeds have higher mineral contents [slashdot.org], I cannot help but chuckle. Of course, their 100-year time line does say something about the practicality of the plan.

Pay attention to what they do. The same thing goes for any government, including our own. Corrupt governments, regardless of what corner of the earth they happen to be exist on, only tell the truth when it is convenient for them to do so or else when they can gain a propaganda advantage against their adversaries by being only truthful enough for their big lies to seem plausible.China says they mean no harm and they only want peace, yet they brazenly shine lasers on our satellites and single handedly add 10%

I find it interesting that the submitter brings up Kennedy and long range goals and visions. I've been pondering on this subject for some time now and it seems that America has lost its vision. We're trapped in a day-to-day shitfest wondering what celebrities are doing while waiting on our next paycheck to go buy some other piece of junk manufactured in said Red Country. What happened to dreaming of putting men in places they've never been and returning alive to tell the tale? Our government of today has paid the due lip service of "man on Mars....eventually", but where is the far vision? Why have we not heard something of this ilk: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of reducing the percentage of energy we import and continuing that trend until such time as we are energy independent"? Or "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of balancing our budget and wisely investing surpluses in areas to maximize American potential in perpetuity." Werner von Braun thought we could have gone to Mars in the Eighties. Instead we're mucking around on planet Earth fighting a combat technique as if it were a thinking, independent entity. I want something to work towards, a dream to live. I don't want to go nine to five for forty years so I can plop my fat ass on the couch and watch the Britneys and Paris' of the future on my SuperTivo(tm). I want a country that's worth living in and living for. But maybe that's too much to ask...

My wife is a Chinese National and an Economist. I don't know where to start on how naïve most of today's comments are on this topic. I myself have been to China four times. It is a vibrant growing area. Disparaging their accomplishments is far from productive.

What amazes my wife most is how much America cares about what are internal Chinese matters, while we, Americans, meddle in every affair across the globe. I can attest that the average Chinese is non too concerned about internet censorship nor political activism. They all assume (rightly or wrongly) they will all have more rights and freedoms as their wealth increases. Modern Chinese care about wealth and security. Obtaining an education is almost a mantra for them.

While the majority of rural Chinese live in property, it will not take too many more decades of double-digit GDP growth to correct this.

While I prefer living in America and believe in Capitalism and Democracy the current Chinese brand of socialism is working well. It is a hybrid system of Capitalism and Central Control that for now is working. It may breakdown in the future, but not necessarily. Communist dogma is not allowed to get in the way of economic planning. That they can plan for the long run should be envied. Chinese patience is an amazing thing.

I am not prepared to say China will eclipse America and the West soon, but am also disinclined to say they could not be the major Super Power in the world 30-50 years from now.

While the majority of rural Chinese live in property, it will not take too many more decades of double-digit GDP growth to correct this.

I live in Ireland. It took one decade of single digit growth to turn this country from a second world laughing stock to a first world economy (though truth be told the economy could be ais to still be a laughing stock). So how come it's going to take several decade for China to do the same? Interia? Give me a break.

As usual, we have dig past all the blogodreck to get to the source material. And, as is typical of third-rate bloggers, there's no link to the original source.
The "100 year vision" policy document they're quoting is speech by Wen Jiabao, [chinese-embassy.no] addressed to the Communist Party of China, which he heads. The blog article attaches importance to the line "China is at the primary stage of socialism, and will remain so for a long time to come." That's a quote from the Chinese constitution. That line was changed b

"Plans" == "Powerpoints" != "Accomplishments" Thus, TFA (which I might point out is unsourced [1]) is incorrect in treating plans as if they were accomplished facts.

I should also point out that various functionaries in the Chinese space progam have been shopping around grand plans for China in space for a couple of years now. One who is familiar with the history of space exploration might note that NASA functionaries did the same thing in the 60's (as well as off and on since then), shopping around grandiose plans far in excess of the political goals of the national leadership. Russia's space officials have been doing the same thing since a little after the fall of the USSR. The results of all three agencies propoganda and planning are noticeable by their absence.

The only concrete results of these (Chinese) "plans" has been a heap of fearmongering FUD on Slashdot and in the blogosphere. All available evidence points towards the Chinese continuing their space program at it's current glacial pace. (Though the term 'glacial' is perhaps inappropriate - as it implies that glaciers have the same blazing speed normally associated with continental drift.) They have just enough of a program to convince the world that they are a Great Nation - and not a Yuan more. (Which is pretty much true of all nations space programs.)

[1] And the "100 Year Vision of Greatness" cited by the submitter only appears on the same website, by the same author as the "Technology Development Plans" article. This seems fairly suspicious.

Chinese strip-mining [phayul.com] and colonization [phayul.com] of Tibet and the militarization [phayul.com] of the historically "new border areas" facing India [phayul.com] (since the 1950 invasion of Tibet by Mao's communist army) are all set to become that much more "ruthlessly efficient" once the "gaps" identified in geology, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering and aeronautical engineering by the junta in Beijing have been addressed. The massive Tibetan mineral deposits already scouted and mapped by the Chinese geologists will make sure that the occupying regime will no show mercy for the Tibetan nation as long as 1) the resources are there to be stolen and 2) the regime remains in absolute power.

Thank your lucky stars right now if you weren't born as a Tibetan, or if you did, that you've never heard about the vague terms of "the UN declaration of human rights" or "solidarity"... although sometimes what you don't know can still hurt you badly.

The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please.

China is in the process of reverse engineering, embracing and extending, and using purchased technology to come up to par with the rest of the world.

I can't speak for all subjects, but have you seen China's internet backbone diagrams? It is a three-tiered full mesh out of a textbook. Would that the US would aspire to bring out communications infrastructure up to the same standard.

If you think the US does not have a myriad of people all over where emergent new tech could be interresting, you are fooling yourself or buying into your own country propaganda. Neither do I fool myself into thinking my country does not do it, and isn't adverse to a bit of wet work (google for rainbow warrior). Don't paint china as the big evil, don't cry wolf during the whole day. After a while people will not hear to you since you were so biased all the time, then when a true horror and human right violat

Have you taken a look at the top research graduate schools in the US recently? Have you noticed the change in distribution of nationalities over the past couple decades?

China is developing quite a lot of top researchers in many fields, and it's hubris to think that we'll always be technologically ahead of China. The way things are going, they'' soon have greater resources dedicated research (if they don't already), as well as some of the top minds in almost every discipline.